SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for cancer patients treated with immunotherapies: Recommendations from the French society for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer (FITC)

Immune-related adverse events and disease outcomes after the third dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccine in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The clinical implications of the third dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently unknown. We performed a prospective analysis of the Vax-On-Third study to investigate the effects of antibody response on immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and disease outcomes.

METHODS

Recipients of the booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccine who had received at least one course of an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment before vaccination for an advanced solid malignancy were eligible.

RESULTS

The current analysis included 56 patients with metastatic disease (median age: 66 years; male: 71%), most of whom had a lung cancer diagnosis and were being treated with pembrolizumab- or nivolumab-based regimens. The optimal cut-point antibody titer of 486 BAU/mL allowed a dichotomization of recipients into low-responders (Low-R, < 486 BAU/mL) or high-responders (High-R, ≥ 486 BAU/mL). After a median follow-up time of 226 days, 21.4% of patients experienced moderate to severe irAEs without any recrudescence of immune toxicities preceding the booster dose. The frequencies of irAE before and after the third dose did not differ, but an increase in the cumulative incidence of immuno-related thyroiditis was observed within the High-R subgroup. On multivariate analysis, an enhanced humoral response correlated with a better outcome in terms of durable clinical benefit, which resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of disease control loss but not mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings would strengthen the recommendation not to change anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment plans based on current or future immunization schedules, implying that all these patients should be closely monitored.

Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study

Introduction Cancer patients on active treatment are at increased risk of developing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), making effective immunization of the utmost importance. However, the effectiveness of vaccination in this population is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the response against COVID-19 in a cohort of patients with active cancer under immunosuppressive therapy. Methods This was a prospective, cross-sectional, single-center study that included patients with cancer under immunosuppressive therapy vaccinated against COVID-19 between April and September 2021. Exclusion criteria were: previous known severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, single-dose vaccine or incomplete vaccination scheme. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were assessed using 35.2 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL as the positive cut-off. Assessments were performed 14-31 days after the first and second dose and three months after the second dose. Results A total of 103 patients were included. The median age was 60 years. Most patients were being treated for gastrointestinal cancer (n=38, 36.9%), breast cancer (n=33, 32%) or head and neck cancer (n=18, 17.5%). At evaluation, 72 patients (69.9%) were being treated with palliative intent. The majority were being treated with chemotherapy (CT) alone (57.3%). At the first assessment, levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 IgG consistent with seroconversion were present in 49 patients (47.6%). At the time of the second assessment, 91% (n=100) achieved seroconversion. Three months after the second dose, 83% (n=70) maintained levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 IgG consistent with seroconversion. In this study, no SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in the study population. Conclusions Our findings suggest that this group of patients had a satisfactory COVID-19 immunization response. Although promising, this study should be replicated on a wider scale in order to validate these findings.

COVID vaccine recommendations in dermatologic patients on immunosuppressive agents: Lessons learned from pandemic

BACKGROUND

Since SARS-CoV2 vaccines were approved without enough long-term monitoring due to emergent situations, some issues have been raised about timing and protocol of receiving them by patients treated by different immunosuppressive agents.

AIM AND METHOD

Here, we present different aspects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in such patients in the field of dermatology.

RESULT

In brief, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is recommended in all dermatologic patients, regardless of their disorders and therapeutic regimens. Nevertheless, special considerations should be given to the immunosuppressive therapy and its association with vaccination timing due to the decreased immunogenicity of vaccines in this setting.

CONCLUSION

Novel biologic immunotherapies are advantageous over conventional systemic therapies not only in their safety and selective functions but also in this aspect that many of them do not affect vaccines immunogenicity.

Diabetic ketoacidosis shortly after COVID-19 vaccination in a non-small-cell lung cancer patient receiving combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors: A case report

We describe a case of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) shortly after the SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19) vaccination in a 65‐year‐old woman with non–small‐cell lung cancer under a combination treatment of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD‐1) and cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte‐associated protein 4 (CTLA‐4) inhibitors. She had no history of diabetic mellitus. A few days after the second shot of COVID‐19 vaccination, she developed DKA. We speculate that the immune‐related adverse event and immunogenicity of vaccination synergistically induced DKA.

Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine response in patients with cancer: An interim analysis

BACKGROUND

Efficacy and safety data of COVID-19 vaccines among cancer populations have been limited; however, preliminary data from recent studies have emerged regarding their immunogenicity and safety in this population. In this review, we examined current peer-reviewed publications containing serological and safety data after COVID-19 vaccination of patients with cancer.

METHODS

This analysis examined 21 studies with a total of 5012 patients with cancer, of which 2676 (53%) had haematological malignancies, 2309 (46%) had solid cancers and 739 were healthy controls. Serological responses by anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1/S2 immunoglobulin G antibody levels and post-vaccination patient questionnaires regarding vaccine-related side-effects after the first and second dose were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

In general, a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine yields weaker and heterogeneous serological responses in both patients with haematological and solid malignancies. On receiving a second dose, serological response rates indicate a substantial increase in seropositivity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in all cancer cohorts, but antibody titres remain reduced in comparison with healthy controls. Furthermore, seroconversion in patients with haematological malignancies was significantly lower than that in patients with solid tumours. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and well-tolerated in patients with cancer based on current data of local and systemic effects.

CONCLUSION

Together, these data support the prioritisation of patients with cancer to receive their first and second doses to minimise the risk of COVID-19 infection and severe complications in this vulnerable population. Additional prophylactic measures must be considered for high-risk patients where current vaccination programs may not mount sufficient protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A snapshot of the immunogenicity, efficacy and safety of a full course of BNT162b2 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in cancer patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: a longitudinal cohort study

Background

Very few cancer patients were enrolled in coronavirus disease-2019 vaccine studies. In order to address this gap of knowledge, real-world studies are mandatory. The aim of this study was to assess both humoral and cellular response after a messenger RNA vaccination schedule.

Patients and methods

Eighty-eight consecutive cancer patients treated with programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors were enrolled from the beginning of the vaccination campaign for frail patients. Blood samples for humoral and cell-mediated immune response evaluation were obtained before vaccination (T0), before the second administration (T1) and 21 days after the second dose (T2). The primary endpoint was the evaluation of the percentage of participants showing a significant increase in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific T cells, measured by an enzyme-linked immunospot assay, after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. The proportion of patients who reached the primary endpoint is computed together with its exact binomial 95% confidence interval.

Results

In SARS-CoV-2-naïve subjects, spike-specific T-cell response was almost undetectable at T0 [median 0.0 interferon-γ (IFN-γ) spot forming units (SFU)/million peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) interquartile range (IQR) 0-7.5] and significantly increased at T1 and T2 (median 15.0 IFN-γ SFU/million PBMC, 25th-75th 0-40 versus 90 IFN-γ SFU/million PBMC, 25th-75th 32.5-224, respectively) (P < 0.001). Focusing on naïve and experienced SARS-CoV-2 subjects, no differences were reported both in terms of CD4- and CD8-specific T-cell response, suggesting that BNT162b2 is able to elicit both adaptive responses after complete vaccination schedule, regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure. The level of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies was low at T1 in SARS-CoV-2-naïve subjects [median 1 : 5 (IQR 1 : 5-1 : 20)] but reached a significantly higher median of 1 : 80 (25th-75th 1 : 20-1 : 160) at T2 (P < 0.0001). Moreover, no COVID-19 cases were documented throughout the period of study.

Conclusions

Our data have demonstrated that the administration of a full course of BNT162b2 vaccine elicited a sustained immune response against SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the type of cancer and/or the type of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

•

In SARS-CoV-2-naïve subjects, spike-specific T-cell response was significantly increased after the second dose of vaccine

•

In patients treated with chemo-immunotherapy, T-cell response seems to be lower with borderline statistical significance

•

Between naïve and experienced patients, no differences were reported in terms of CD4- and CD8-specific T-cell response

•

In naïve patients, the level of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies reached a significantly higher median of 1 : 80 after the second dose

•

No COVID-19 cases were documented throughout the period of study

Cancer or COVID-19? A Review of Recommendations for COVID-19 Vaccination in Cancer Patients

While emergency use is authorized for numerous COVID-19 vaccines and the high-risk population including cancer patients or those with immunosuppression due to disease or therapy is prioritized, data on this group’s specific safety and efficacy of these vaccines remains limited. Safety data from clinical trials and population data may be extrapolated, and these vaccines may be used for cancer patients. However, concerns of efficacy due to the variable immune response in patients with active cancers undergoing active therapy and cancer survivors with chronic immunosuppression remain. The authors aim to discuss the current recommendations for use of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer.

[COVID-19 Vaccination for Cancer Patients: Progress and Preliminary Recommendations]

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a serious impact on global health. COVID-19 vaccines may be one of the most effective measure to end the pandemic. High infection risk and higher serious incident and mortality rates have been shown in cancer patients with COVID-19. Therefore, cancer patients should be the priority group for COVID-19 prevention. Until now, data of COVID-19 vaccination for cancer patients is lacking. We review the interim data of safety and immune-efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients based on the latest studies. Due to the complicated immune systems of cancer patients caused by the malignancy and anticancer treatments, we proposed preliminary specific COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for cancer patients with different anticancer treatments and at different stages of the disease. Preventing COVID-19 with vaccinations for cancer patients is crucial, and we call for more large-scale clinical trials and real-world studies, for further COVID-19 vaccination recommendations development.
.

Current perspectives for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination efficacy improvement in patients with active treatment against cancer

A higher risk of death from coronavirus disease 19 has been shown for patients with solid cancers or haematological malignancies (HM). Thanks to the accelerated development of anti–SARS-SoV-2 vaccines in less than a year since the start of the global pandemic, patients with cancer were quickly prioritised in early 2021 for vaccination, however dependent on the very unequal availability at the global level. Impaired immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in immunocompromised patients was rapidly reported as early as April 2021, although the vaccination fortunately appears to be generally effective without increasing the spacing. Worryingly, the humoral response of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is, however, considered insufficient in patients followed for HM, in particular when they are on anti-CD20 treatment.

Thus, improving vaccination coverage by strengthening immune stimulation should be evaluated in patients under active treatment against cancer. Here, we discuss three different approaches: a third dose of early vaccine (repeated immune stimulation), heterologous prime-boost vaccination (multimodal immune stimulation) and a double-dose strategy (maximisation of immune response). Dedicated therapeutic trials, currently almost non-existent, seem rapidly necessary.